http://danvillesanramon.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=&t=4523


Town Square

Settling Dust, Unsettling Implications

Original post made by Tom Cushing, Danville, on Jul 7, 2013

The US Supreme Court's two recent gay marriage rulings, more political than principled, left a significant gap in the CA initiative process. The strong language contained in Justice Kennedy's denunciation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act left little doubt that state gay marriage bans will be thrown-out when they reach The Court. The Justices, though, could not bring themselves to do so directly in their CA Prop 8 challenge. Presented with the easy-out of a procedural irregularity ("standing to sue"), this Court sidestepped the merits of the case and concluded that Prop 8's defenders were improperly before them.

This story contains 1040 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of another community
on Jul 8, 2013 at 1:39 pm

Perhaps government by initiative and referendum is no government at all. Why can't we elect legislators who are up to the job of governance?


Like this comment
Posted by Farmer Dave
a resident of another community
on Jul 9, 2013 at 7:56 am

Farmer Dave is a registered user.

I have another fix for the referendum process:

Any proposition which has a cost must include offsetting revenues in order to be valid.

The previous passage of great-sounding propositions without offsetting revenue sources has contributed greatly to California's budget issues. By design, a proposition's expenses MUST be incurred by the state, limiting the government's ability to manage its budget. At least a third of the budget falls into this category.